I Have More Mail [Updated 03-Nov-2012]

Readers may remember my email from the Education Minister for England, Rt.Hon. Michael Gove, MP concerning his granting of permission to Creationist organisations to set up 'Free Schools'. (Scotland and Wales have devolved responsibility for education).

Briefly, Free Schools are outside the control of elected local authorities and are accountable directly to the Department for Education at national level. There are real fears that this will open the door to Creationists groups seeking to pursue the US Christian conservative right's 'Wedge Strategy', which seeks to subvert and circumvent secular education and insert fundamentalist Bible literalism into mainstream education, especially science curricula disguised as genuine scientific theories.

As well as the email to Michael Gove, I had also emailed my MP, Nichola Blackwood, MP (Oxford West & Abingdon) with a similar pro forma email. This was during the summer recess so Ms Blackwood's delay in replying is understandable.

From: *************
Sent: 17 July 2012 18:47
To: BLACKWOOD, Nicola
Subject: Creationists approved to open Free School in 2013

Dear Ms Blackwood

I am writing as your constituent to express serious concern about the Government's decision to 'pre-approve' for opening three Free Schools from groups intending to teach creationism - two in 2012 and one in 2013:

• Grindon Hall Christian School in Sunderland was approved to open last October, and are due to open this September. In the 'Creation Policy' on their website, they 'affirm that to believe in God's creation of the world is an entirely respectable position scientifically and rationally', and say that 'We will teach creation as a scientific theory and we will always affirm very clearly our position as Christians, i.e. that Christians believe that God's creation of the world is not just a theory but a fact with eternal consequences for our planet and for every person who has ever lived on it.'
• Exemplar - Newark Business Academy was approved to open last week, and is due to open from September 2013. The plans are from the same people who proposed Everyday Champion's Academy last year. Everyday Champion's Academy, which was formally backed by Everyday Champions Church, was rejected last year because Michael Gove was 'unable to accept that an organisation with creationist beliefs could prevent these views being reflected in the teaching in the school and in its other activities.' However, in spite of this statement, the subsequent bid has now been approved. Since gaining approval, the group behind the bid has said that it still intends to teach creationism - only in RE instead of science.
• Sevenoaks Christian School was also approved to open last week, and is also due to open from September 2013. On their website, they explain that they, too, believe God created the world, but have identified that they can't teach creationism in science, so they will teach it in RE instead.

Grindon Hall's intention to teach creationism in science is a classic example of the so-called 'teach the controversy' approach, often used by American creationist groups to get creationism taught in schools. Creationists do not argue that evolution should not be taught; they simply argue that there is genuine scientific debate over the origins of the Universe and the Earth, and that therefore creationism should be taught alongside evolution as a valid alternative theory. However, there is no scientific controversy over evolution and creationism: the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of evolution. Creationism should not be taught as a valid scientific theory because it is not one. The Department for Education has been clear on this, so it is surprising to see the school gain pre-approval.

Both Exemplar and Sevenoaks intend to teach creationism, but not in science lessons. It is quite common for primary schools to teach about the Christian, Jewish or Muslim creation narrative, as it is a prominent story in the Bible. But it is extremely rare for a secondary school to do likewise, and this raises concerns that these schools are intending to promote creationist views to their students as scientific theories.

Furthermore, I cannot see that it is worth the risk of funding to run a school a creationist group that promises not to teach creationism. This seems like a recipe for disaster.

This matter is of the utmost importance to me, and I would like to ask if you would make representations to Michael Gove on my behalf and work more generally to ensure the Free School programme does not lead to pseudoscientific groups running state-funded schools.


Yours sincerely,
*************

From: BLACKWOOD, Nicola [mailto:nicola.blackwood.mp@parliament.uk]
Sent: 03 September 2012 15:48
To: ********************
Subject: RE: Creationists approved to open Free School in 2013

Dear **********,

Thank you for contacting me about the issue of Creationism and Free Schools and I apologise for the delay in my response over the Parliamentary recess.

I appreciate your concerns on this issue. However, I hope you may be reassured to know that Ministers have been very clear that Creationism should not form part of any science curriculum or be taught as a scientific alternative to accepted scientific theories such as evolution. The Department for Education expects to see evolution and its foundation topics fully included in any science curriculum.

I would also like to assure you that all free school proposals are subject to due diligence checks by a specialist unit within the Department for Education, to ensure that the people that are setting up the school are suited to this very important task. Every application approved, including for the schools that you have highlighted, has also had to demonstrate that the new school will provide a broad and balanced curriculum.

I would assure you that Free Schools are subject to Ofsted inspections in the same way as all other schools and the Secretary of State has powers to intervene in a school where there is significant cause for concern.

I have written to the Education Secretary to pass your concerns on this issue to his direct attention, and I shall of course be glad to pass on any substantive response I receive in due course.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me on this issue and I hope this response is helpful.

Kind regards,
Nicola

From: ****************
Sent: 04 September 2012 19:24
To: BLACKWOOD, Nicola
Subject: RE: Creationists approved to open Free School in 2013

Dear Ms Blackwood,

Thank you for replying to my email and taking time to forward my concern to Michael Gove.

Could you obtain answers to the following questions, which I have numbered for ease of future reference:

1. Have any specific assurances have been requested by the Department for Education that Creationism will not be included in the science curricula of these three schools in any form, and if so, if they have been given, please? This is particularly relevant to Grindon Hall Christian School, Sunderland, in view of their stated intention to teach Creationism as a scientific theory and their view that biblical creation is a fact, not a theory.

2. If assurances have been given, what monitoring will be in place to ensure they are kept and what sanctions will be applied to offending schools should they not be?

3. Has the Department for Education put in place any measures to ensure that children at free schools are taught that there is a clear distinction between religious opinions and matters of scientific fact, and that, when being taught in RE classes opinions which conflict with the body of scientific opinion, pupils are given a clear understanding that what is being taught is not something accepted as factual by an overwhelming majority of scientists working in the relevant scientific fields?

4. If no such measures have been put in place, why not, please?

Thank you again for your time.

Yours sincerely,
***************

(Please feel free to use all or part of the above email should you wish to email your MP on this matter. You can find your MP and his/her contact details at www.parliament.uk)

From: BLACKWOOD, Nicola [mailto:nicola.blackwood.mp@parliament.uk]
Sent: 17 September 2012 15:06
To: ***************
Subject: RE: Creationists approved to open Free School in 2013

Dear ***********,

Thank you for your further email regarding Creationist teaching in schools.

I have written directly to the Education Secretary to ask that he would consider and respond the points you have raised, and I shall of course pass on any substantive response I receive in the usual way.

Thank you once again for contacting me on this issue and I hope this is helpful.

Kind regards,
Nicola

From: ************
Sent: 20 October 2012 11:48
To: 'BLACKWOOD, Nicola'
Subject: RE: Creationists approved to open Free School in 2013

Dear Ms Blackwood

I note that I have not yet received a reply from the Education Secretary. I wonder if you could pursue this matter on my behalf.

Thank you for your help.

From: HOLDENWHITE, Tamsin [mailto:tamsin.holdenwhite@parliament.uk]
Sent: 22 October 2012 10:54
To: *******
Subject: RE: Creationists approved to open Free School in 2013


Dear *******,

Thank you for your email.

I hope you will be pleased to know that the response from the Department For Education has been received in the office and that Nicola has written to you passing this on. The letter should, with any luck, reach you in the next few days though the post.

If it does not appear forthcoming, do please let me know.

Best wishes,
Tamsin

Tamsin Holden-White
Parliamentary Assistant ■ Office of Nicola Blackwood MP ■ Oxford West and Abingdon
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
nicola.blackwood.mp@parliament.uk
0207 219 7126 - Westminster Office
www.nicolablackwood.com

At last, a reply from a junior minister in the Education Department:

Text: Dear *************** Further to our recent correspondence regarding your concerns about the teaching of Creationism in Free Schools, I enclose a response I have received from Lord Hill of Oareford, Parliamentary Under-secretary of State for Schools. I hope the minister's response on this issue is helpful and thank you once again for taking the time to contact me on this issue. Do let me know if I can be of any further assistance of if I can raise any concerns to the attention of Ministers in future. Best Wishes Nicola Nicola Blackwood MP Member of Parliament for Oxford West and Abingdon.

Text: Thank you for your letter of 5 September, addressed to the Secretary of State, enclosing further correspondence from your constituent, ************* of **************, ******** about creationism in Free Schools. I am replying as the Minister responsible for this policy area. There is no place for the teaching of creationism as science in Free Schools. The Free School application guidance is clear: creationism, intelligent design, and similar ideas cannot be taught as valid scientific theories. In this instance, the Department defines creationism as a belief that a divine creation can be empirically proven. It is perfectly acceptable for a Free School, or any other state-funded school, to teach the belief that God created everything as a faith position in Religious Education (RE). At the same time, we expect to see evolution and its foundation topics fully included in these schools' science curricula. The teaching of creationism as science in any lesson, including RE, is forbidden by legal agreement that sets out the conditions by which all Free Schools receive their funding. Should there be evidence of a breach of this clause we would take swift action which would be likely to result in the termination of that funding agreement. This would mean that the organisation no longer had any role in running the school with state funding. We would not have approved any application to pre-opening stage if we believed these schools would teach creationism as science, or if we doubted their ability to teach a high quality science curriculum more generally. The Department will work with all projects over coming months to ensure they honour commitments they made in their proposal and interview. Free Schools are subject to Ofsted inspection in the same way as all other state schools. The teaching of creationism as a potentially valid scientific theory would clearly affect Ofsted's assessment of the quality of a school's teaching and would raise questions about the quality of its leadership and management. The Government also has powers to intervene in a school where there is significant cause for concern on these grounds. Your sincerely Jonathan Hill

So that seems to conclude this exchange. It's revealing that the Department for Education has no specific monitoring in place for these schools to ensure their compliance with their agreements beyond the normal Ofsted scrutiny used for local government-run schools, but it is reassuring that the risk losing funding should they be tempted to teach Creationism as anything other than a faith position.

It will be interesting to see if science teachers stick to the spirit of this legal obligation rather than the strict letter of the funding agreement.

"I'm not allowed to teach you that our Lord created the earth and all things on it. Instead, I have to teach you the atheistic views of Charles Darwin that even he recanted on his death bed and which are still only theories...."

---

These websites may be of interest:

Grindon Hall Christian School.

Exemplar Academy (Despite this URL being given as their web address on Exemplar's Twitter page, it appears to be non-existent.)

Sevenoaks Christian School. Tucked away here on their website we find this statement: We will not teach ‘creationism’ or ‘intelligent design’ as an alternative to the theory of evolution; indeed Free Schools are prohibited by law from teaching this.

It would appear from their emails that neither the Minister for Education, Michael Gove, nor Nicola Blackwood are aware of this legal prohibition on teaching 'Creationism' or its under-cover version, 'Intelligent Design', since neither of them mention it. This Wikipedia article states that teaching evolution in science is a compulsory part of the science curriculum for state-funded schools, but makes no mention of teaching the various forms of 'creationism' being illegal.

I will keep readers posted.

---

Jesus And The Witches of Salem

First, a little background on the Salem Witch trials, for those who don't know it, followed by a short quiz. (If you know the story, skip forward to the quiz).

The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings and prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts, between February 1692 and May 1693. Despite being generally known as the Salem witch trials, the preliminary hearings in 1692 were conducted in a variety of towns across the province: Salem Village (now Danvers), Ipswich, Andover and Salem Town.

The most infamous trials were conducted by the Court of Oyer and Terminer in 1692 in Salem Town. One contemporary writer summed the results of the trials thus:

And now Nineteen persons having been hang'd, and one prest to death, and Eight more condemned, in all Twenty and Eight, of which above a third part were Members of some of the Churches of N. England, and more than half of them of a good Conversation in general, and not one clear'd; about Fifty having confest themselves to be Witches, of which not one Executed; above an Hundred and Fifty in Prison, and Two Hundred more acccused; the Special Commision of Oyer and Terminer comes to a period…

Robert Calef

At least five more of the accused died in prison.

When I put an end to the Court there ware at least fifty persons in prision in great misery by reason of the extream cold and their poverty, most of them having only spectre evidence against them and their mittimusses being defective, I caused some of them to be lettout upon bayle and put the Judges upon consideration of a way to reliefe others and to prevent them from perishing in prision, upon which some of them were convinced and acknowledged that their former proceedings were too violent and not grounded upon a right foundation … The stop put to the first method of proceedings hath dissipated the blak cloud that threatened this Province with destruccion…

Governor William Phips
February 21st, 1693

The episode is one of the most notorious cases of mass hysteria, and has been used in political rhetoric and popular literature as a vivid cautionary tale about the dangers of isolationism, religious extremism, false accusations and lapses in due process. It was not unique, being an American example of the much larger phenomenon of witch trials in the Early Modern period, but many have considered the lasting impressions from the trials to have been highly influential in subsequent American history.

Wikipedia - Salem Witch Trials

Okay, that's the background, now for the short quiz:

Gods Come And Go But Truth Remains

Minoan "Snake Goddess"

A few miles south of Heraklion, the main town and port of Crete, are the ruins of Knossos, a vast palace/temple cum town complex built by Bronze Age people of whom we know little. Their written language has not been deciphered so we do not even know what language they spoke and how it relates to any other Mediterranean or Indo-European languages. All we know of their religion is what we can deduce from their buildings, pottery, artefacts and art.

The Minoans seem to have worshipped primarily goddesses, which has sometimes been described as a "matriarchal religion". Although there is some evidence of male gods, depictions of Minoan goddesses vastly outnumber depictions of anything that could be considered a Minoan god. While some of these depictions of women are speculated to be images of worshippers and priestesses officiating at religious ceremonies, as opposed to the deity herself, there still seem to be several goddesses including a Mother Goddess of fertility, a Mistress of the Animals, a protectress of cities, the household, the harvest, and the underworld, and more. Poet Robert Graves has argued that these are all aspects of a single Great Goddess.

A major festive celebration was exemplified in the famous athletic Minoan bull dance, represented at large in the frescoes of Knossos and inscribed in miniature seals.

The Minoan horn-topped altars, since [Sir Arthur] Evans'

Obscenities of Christianity - Cretan Church.

I've just come back from a week in beautiful Crete, Greece, one place I've want to go to for years. It has inspired me to write a couple of blogs, maybe more.

The main town and port is Heraklion, (or Heraclion also Iraklion) Greek: Ηράκλειο Greek pronunciation: iˈraklio. The centre has a thriving café culture centred around Plateia El Greco, (named after the Heraklion painter Domenikos Theotokopoulos who worked in Spain under the name Al Greco) and the nearby Plateia Eleftherias, also known as Lions Square, with it's fountain, originally built as the town's water supply.

Walk down August 25th Street from Plateia Eleftherias towards the harbour, past the café, tourist shops and beggars, many of whom are disabled, hopefully

So What's This God Thing Like Then?

It is very strange. The Bible is very clear on the matter. Man was created in God's image.

Well, to be pedantic, in the image of the other gods as well, after Yahweh proposed the motion: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26) and yet Christians are forever telling us that this was only allegorical or metaphorical or any -al but literal, because obviously both men and women can't be in the likeness of any one person what with the problem of genitalia, squidgy bits, etc, not to mention the problem of explaining what a god would need genitalia, or indeed a body at all, for, and above all, not to mention a navel. (Oh! I just did!).

But how does that claim stand up to scrutiny, and especially with what the Bible (i.e., God) has to say about God - if you believe all that stuff? What exactly does God think he's like? How does God see God?

What is Reddit FOR Exactly?

Normally, I confine this blog to articles dealing with all aspects of religion, science as it relates to the claims of religion, and occasionally to UK politics, so this is something of a departure. However, since if appears to be impacting on Atheism, or at least the ability of Atheists to promote their blogs to the widest possible readership, I feel justified in writing this blog about what seems to be a very recent change in Reddit's policy.

This change seems to have been made with a minimum of publicity, even secrecy. One is tempted to relate this change to the American presidential election race, though perhaps I'm making 2+2=5 there. It only came to light as a result of a leak reported on Forbes entitled Reddit Reportedly Banning High-Quality Domains posted in June 2012 but so far completely ignored in Reddit.

Within the past 24 hours, user-contributed link aggregator reddit.com compiled a "secret list" of banned domains—including such reputable news sites as The Atlantic, Business Week, PhysOrg and ScienceDaily. But the controversy doesn't end there.

Reddit user and moderator violentacrez brought the issue to light in a post titled, "Reddit is now banning entire high-quality domains, using an unpublished list"

"reddit admins enabled a new feature where links from domains on a secret list cannot be posted, even by moderators, even in their own reddits."

[...]

One of the reasons behind the censorship is that it isn't being seen by reddit staff as censorship. The banned domains have been linked to accusations of reddit users "gaming the system," or having financial ties to the promoted links. "Spamming" and "Cheating" were the catchwords for getting these site-wide domain bans in place—but this so-called spam differs vastly from the typical junk you see floating around the "new" section that is downvoted by users, featuring sketchy domain names and topics ranging from cheap prescriptions to racy photos of Bollywood celebrities, etc. Cheating, refers to hammering "fake" upvotes from bots on a network of proxied IP addresses, sometimes allowing the submitted link to reach the front page without the curation of real reddit users.

So, what has all this got to do with Atheism and me in particular?

Well, it seems this domain is one of those banned by Reddit. I only suspect this because every link posted to this blog in the last few days is invisible to anyone but the poster. From getting several hundred hits from Reddit readers a day, the hit rate has fallen to precisely zero.

I have never been given a reason for this and have never been given the opportunity to appeal it. It seems too that any attempt to discuss this or seek an explanation gets others an instant ban too, as Plasma Engineer reported in his Something Surprising blog.

And all of this seems to have been due to the efforts of one particular Reddit user who calls him/herself Iesvs (it doesn't take a genius to work out the mindset behind that username), who seems to have developed an obsession with me, routinely reporting every link and every comment and spamming me with obscenities. (I'll assume he's male, though I apologise to any normal males who may understandably be offended by that assumption).

Looking at Iesvs's contributions, I am not the only Atheist to get this treatment. His contribution to debate is almost wholly confined to one or two lines of personal abuse consisting of sexually explicit and scatological references unrelated to the post he is commenting on or the comment he is replying to, especially to posters whom he believes to be female.

The only other thing he ever posts about is his prowess at getting people banned which seems to be his entire raison d'etre judging by the time he devotes to it. In fact, he appears to be semi-literate at best and obsessed with preventing people promoting their blogs and with other people reading them. Why this should be such a concern for his is probably not hard to judge.

But, Iesvs and his personality problems aside, it is a mystery why Reddit should have adopted this policy of secret censorship, especially in view of its declared opposition to SOPA posted here. Quote:

reddit,
Today, the US House Judiciary Committee has a hearing on the Stop Online Piracy Act or SOPA. The text of the bill is here. This bill would strengthen copyright holders' means to go after allegedly infringing sites at detrimental cost to the freedom and integrity of the Internet. As a result, we are joining forces with organizations such as the EFF, Mozilla, Wikimedia, and the FSF for American Censorship Day.

Part of this act would undermine the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act which would make sites like reddit and YouTube liable for hosting user content that may be infringing. This act would also force search engines, DNS providers, and payment processors to cease all activities with allegedly infringing sites, in effect, walling off users from them.

This bill sets a chilling precedent that endangers everyone's right to freely express themselves and the future of the Internet. If you would like to voice your opinion to those in Washington, please consider writing your representative and the sponsors of this bill:

The only 'offence' I can think I've committed is promoting my own blogs there. Perhaps naively, I had assumed that was what Reddit was for, and it certainly encouraged it in it's early days. If this is an offence then it must rate as one of the more bizarre on the Internet. Who on earth writes a blog to keep it secret and which blogger doesn't go to some length to promote their blog?

Surely, the ethos of Reddit is that people are free to read whatever is recommended to them or not, as they wish. It's not as though posting a link with a brief description of what the blog is about is actually pushing a product or putting up some in-your-face advert for something. It's merely putting a link in a list and saying, "I've written this. Read it if you want to and comment if you wish!"

But perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe Reddit is where people come to read obscenities and scatological references by unemployable semi-literate retards who think their importance is measured by the trouble they can cause to others and who seem to think it's a sign of being grown up to be sexually explicit and talk about poo when your mum is not looking.

It's a shame a once valuable Internet resource seems to value these contributors above all others as they try to reach down to the lowest common denominator and cater for those who take offence at words of more than two syllables and regard civilised debate as highbrow and elitist.

What use is an Internet aggregator site which bans blogs and news feeds when there is an almost infinite number of other sites where one can post infantile pictures, favourite quotes and obscenities too if so minded.

It makes this statement in Reddit's own blog on how to create a subreddit somehow ring hollow:

Subreddits are a free market. Anyone can create a subreddit and decide how it is run. If you disagree with how a subreddit is moderated, it’s good to first reach out to the team directly through moderator mail. Singling out moderators through reddit creates more drama than constructive change (reminder: posting personal information will not be tolerated). If you are unable to resolve your grievances with the current moderation team of a subreddit, the best response is often to create a competitor and see if the community follows you. In the rare cases of mismoderation, some of the most successful subreddits ever have cropped up overnight in response.

---

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

Inspiring Atheists

One of the more condescending arguments used by sufferers from religion, and ranking alongside their claim to hold a monopoly on morality for demonstrably unjustified arrogance, is that without religion we wouldn't have great works of art, music, etc., because only religion can inspire human beings to artistic creativity.

While there can be little doubt that religious subjects were often the subject of great works of art or musical composition - the breath-taking beauty of Handel's Messiah and Van Gough's "The Sower" spring to mind. (Some might struggle to see the religion in Van Gough's works but it absolutely pervades it. Look at the painting on the right. It's one of Vincent van Gough's most profoundly religious paintings, in my opinion).

I'll maybe write a blog about Atheist artists one day. This one is about Atheist composers.

It will probably come as a surprise to religion sufferers who like to pretend their co-superstitionists have a monopoly on artistic creativity that there is an enormous list of Atheist and non-believer composers, and that many of them wrote 'religious' music. Some of them, like Elgar and Mozart lost faith in later life, so whatever religious beliefs may have inspired their earlier works, they clearly never inspired them to remain religious.

The Easter Challenge

Here's a challenge for Christians, especially those who believe the Bible to be the literal, inerrant word of a god, and even those who believe the five accounts of the resurrection of Jesus by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul are an account of an actual resurrection by Jesus.

First, a few words from Thomas Paine:

I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted, first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true.

Thomas Paine. The Age Of Reason. 1776

The challenge is to take all five accounts of the events following the supposed crucifixion of Jesus and, starting on Easter morning and, omitting none of the details given in the five biblical accounts, construct a logical sequence of events.

I make no claim of authorship of this challenge which appears in Dan Barker's book 'Godless: How An Evangelical Preacher Became One Of America's Leading Atheists'.

The relevant chapters and/or verses of the Bible are:

The Historical Evidence For Jesus.

Icon of Jesus As Christ Pantocrator
by ITI Ion Vincent Danu

[Reformatted and republished to display better on iPhones and hand-held devises]

Is there good, extra-biblical evidence for the Jesus described in the New Testament?

Most Christian apologists and most preachers will usually be able to quote a list of names of ancient 'historians' or other writers who mentioned Jesus and will confidently assure us that these prove beyond reasonable doubt that the biblical Jesus existed and that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are accurate biographies (in spite of the conflicting, contradictory and obviously anecdotal and/or invented details). It's almost as though Jesus was being regularly referred to in contemporary accounts and written about by all manner of historians of his day. No doubt at all that the Bible is real history and can be verified by independent eye-witness accounts.

Or that's the impression apologists want to give you - and some of them may actually believe it. But, as so often, the historical facts were very different to the claims of Christian apologists.

In his book, "Godless: How An Evangelical Preacher Became One Of America's Leading Atheists", Dan Barker tells how, when he became a free-thinker he realised how shallow had been his study of the documentary evidence for Jesus during his four years of religious study at Azusa Pacific College (now University).

Not that it was a bad class, but it seemed so unnecessary. It provided an answer to a question nobody was asking...

The class did not delve deeply into the ancient documents. We recited the roster of early historians and read some of the church fathers, and then promptly forgot them all. I figured that Christian scholars had already done the homework and that our faith rested on a firm historical foundation, and that if I ever needed to look it up I could turn to some book somewhere for the facts. I just never needed to look it up.

p. 251. Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

The usual list of 'historical documents' which 'prove' the historicity of Jesus, and which is routinely trotted out by Christian apologists, is usually a copy and paste from a Christian apologists on-line source. It will normally include:

Flavius Josephus Suetonius Pliny the Younger Tacitus Thallus Mara bar Serapion Lucian of Samosata Phlegon of Tralles Tertullian

Justin Martyr Clement of Rome Ignatius of Antioch Polycarp Clement of Alexandria Hippolytus of Rome Origen Cyprian

Wow! Impressive, or what? Clearly masses of extra-biblical evidence!

Er... or maybe not.

Debate: Is There Scientific Evidence Only For The Christian God?

Checkmate!

Watch expelled seminarian @Sacerdotus panic and run as he realises he's been exposed as a fraud by making claims he couldn't substantiate in free debate:

Terms and conditions

The topic for debate will be the proposition that:

There is verifiable, falsifiable, scientific evidence for only the Christian God for which no possible natural explanation can exist.

This debate will take place between the proposer (the person calling himself @Sacerdotus) and myself. It will be conducted according to the following rules:

The proposer will supply an agreed scientific definition of the Christian God against which the proposition can be tested, precise details of the evidence and how it can be verified, how it could be falsified and how it establishes the truth of the proposition beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so will be regarded as conceding the debate.

A neutral referee will be agreed. The rulings of this referee will be final and binding on both parties to the debate. The referee will rule on:

1. Whether an assertion of fact has been validated with verified evidence.
2. Whether questions have been answered fully, honestly and without prevarication.
3. The meaning of words, when these are in dispute.
4. Whether an argument was ad hominem or not.
5. Any other disputes when requested by either of the parties to the debate.
6. Whether a referral to the referee was mendacious or an attempt to prevaricate, divert or otherwise obstruct the normal flow of debate.
7. The referee may intervene at any time to declare the debate won, lost or drawn.

Should either party fail to provide evidence for which a claim of its existence has been made, the debate will be considered lost.

Making any claim which is shown to be untrue or unsupported by evidence will result in forfeiture of the debate.

Ad hominem arguments will result in forfeiture.

Failure to respond to an reasonable point, answer a reasonable question or to supply the evidence requested within three days (subject to notified periods of absence) will result in forfeiture.

The debate will take place across two blog sites; this one and @Sacerdotus' own blog. Each party will make it clear which point is being addressed. A record of the entire debate may be published in full at the discretion of either party.

[Update]
As I expected, though I hoped not, Sacerdotus would not accept these terms and conditions nor was he able to establish the proposition despite his boasts that he could produce scientific proof of the Christian god's existence. Perhaps his definitions of the meanings of the words 'scientific' and 'proof' are private ones and not those used by normal people.

How Christian Fundamentalists Lie To Us

Rosa never replied: I challenge you to a debate. sacerdotvs.blogspot.com @rosarubicondior #Liar4Jesus #Atheism#atheistrollcall #Atheist #won
— Sacerdotus (@Sacerdotus) August 19, 2012

Rosa #afraid to debate I challenge youto a debate sacerdotvs.blogspot.com @rosarubicondior #Liar4Jesus #Atheism#atheistrollcall #Atheist #won
— Sacerdotus (@Sacerdotus) August 19, 2012

Rosa defeated, never replied to: I challenge you to a debate sacerdotvs.blogspot.com @rosarubicondior#Atheism#atheistrollcall #Atheist #won

— Sacerdotus (@Sacerdotus) August 19, 2012

Why is Rosa afraid to #debate me? No intellectual confidence sacerdotvs.blogspot.com @rosarubicondior#Atheism#atheistrollcall #Atheist #won
— Sacerdotus (@Sacerdotus) August 19, 2012

Rosa? Come out the rabbit hole.Let's debate sacerdotvs.blogspot.com @rosarubicondior#Atheism#atheistrollcall #Atheist #won
— Sacerdotus (@Sacerdotus) August 19, 2012

The vocal #Atheist Rosa becomes silent. Afraid 2 #debate me sacerdotvs.blogspot.com @rosarubicondior#Atheism#atheistrollcall #Atheist #won
— Sacerdotus (@Sacerdotus) August 19, 2012

Did Rosa evolve into a scurdy cat?#afraid 2 #debateme sacerdotvs.blogspot.com @rosarubicondior#Atheism#atheistrollcall #Atheist #won
— Sacerdotus (@Sacerdotus) August 19, 2012

Why is the "mighty" #Atheist Rosa afraid 2 #debate me? sacerdotvs.blogspot.com @rosarubicondior#Atheism#atheistrollcall #Atheist #won
— Sacerdotus (@Sacerdotus) August 19, 2012

It's never a pretty sight to watch a fundamentalist in melt-down, hilarious though it might be, and I don't normally carry over spats in Twitter into this blog, but this one is too good to pass up.



Of course, you can't draw a general conclusion from a specific example, but this illustrates what can happen when religious (in this case Catholic Christian) fanaticism crossed the boundary between a sincere attempt to convince people of the truth of a firmly-held superstitious belief, and a blatantly dishonest attempt to fool people, having run out of ideas for doing it honestly and with integrity but lacking the moral courage to admit to not having any evidence to use when asked for some.

It also illustrates rather nicely I think, the point I made in an earlier blog - If Creationism Is Science, Why Do They Need Tactics? - to which no creationist has yet been able to produce a coherent reply.

It also illustrates the parasitic viral nature of the religion meme in one of its more pathological manifestations.

These tweets on the right were posted by a fundamentalist who claims to be a trainee Catholic priest but who already has a reputation for dishonesty and is something of a figure of fun in the community of people who follow and post to the #Atheist / #Atheism hashtags on Twitter. He is know by the user-name @Sacerdotus. The tweets were all sent between 16:41 and 16:53 on 19 August 2012 BST.

The first thing to notice is the the link @Sacerdotus includes (sacerdotvs.blogspot.com) does not link to any such challenge, nor is there any reference to one on the site it links to. It is merely a link to his blog.

@Sacerdotus has access to my blog (Rosa Rubicondior) and regularly posts comments but has never seen fit to post his 'challenge' there, nor have I ever received a challenge to him via email. I have never seen a Twitter tweet referencing this 'challenge', although, as @Sacerdustus knows, I had blocked him several months ago having tired of his infantile and dishonest 'debating' tactics there and in accord with the policy I state in my Twitter bio, and only unblocked him yesterday, so maybe @Sacerdotus chose to hide his 'challenge' by tweeting to me when he knew I wouldn't receive it.

But perhaps I am crediting @Sacerdotus with too much intelligence in assuming he would know that to issue a challenge, one needs to communicate that challenge to the person you are challenging, but, even for a trainee Catholic priest it seems unlikely that he would really be that stupid.

Which just leaves us with one realistic explanation: @Sacerdotus is lying again, and hoping again to trick people with deception because he knows that truth and honesty won't work.

And this of course illustrates what Francis Collins, himself a Catholic Christian, means when he says in The Language of God "Young Earth Creationism has reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy, both in its science and in its theology. Its persistence is thus one of the great puzzles and great tragedies of our time". I would also add moral bankruptcy to that charge but then that is to be expected of those who have abdicated personal responsibility in favour of obedience to the diktat of a character in a book, who then provides a convenient scapegoat in the 'God Sez!' excuse.

@Sacerdotus' abandonment of even a pretence of honesty and integrity and his descent into the playground tactics illustrated above in lieu of evidence, reason and logic in civilised debate, shows how religion can pervert the human mind and turn it to it's own purpose at the expense of personal integrity and dignity, just as a virus perverts the host it infects and uses it for the benefit of the virus at the expense of the host.

One wonders just what else sufferers from this psychotic delusion are capable of perpetrating on mankind if they ever regained the power they once held over us in the appropriately-called 'Dark Ages', if this is the sort of response you get to a polite request to validate an assertion or provide supporting evidence for a claim of fact.

Further reading: It Could Never Happen To Us - Zombies Controlled By A Parasite.

[Update]: To see how this subsequently developed and how @Sacerdotus, who turned out to be Manuel de Dios Agosto who was expelled from St Joseph's Seminary, NY because of his behaviour there, and who now spends his days trolling the Internet harassing, abusing and intimidating people, including threatening them with violence, under a variety of guises, see:

• Debate: Is There Scientific Evidence Only For The Christian God? in which I called Manuel's bluff and offered him the debate he claims he wanted. His subsequent panic and hysterical breakdown can be enjoyed as it unfolds.
• God's Inerrant Omniscience Revisited in which Manuel is invited to answer a coupe of simple questions concerning basic tenets of Christian theology and his hilariously inept attempts to disguise his embarrassment again.
• What To Do With A Spent Loon? in which I polled the Twitter community on how best to treat Manuel now his ineptitude and infantile personality had been exposed to ridicule. Comments plainly show his well-earned reputation.
• Sacerdotus - The Fraud Exposed in which Twitter user @Yhwh_TheLord exposed Manuel and proved he was the same Manuel de Dios Agosto who attended Grace H Dodge school and was subsequently admitted to Catholic seminary prior to 2003. Also shows how several Twitter accounts are Manuel in different guises.
• Manny's Many Twitter Accounts which list the known Twitter accounts which are or have been used by Manuel to harrass, abuse, intimmidate and threaten other Twitter users. Many of these are still suspended. At least one Twitter user has reported filing a complaint of stalking and harassment against Manuel de Dios Agosto with NYPD.
• How Manuel abuses and intimidates user of blogger by pretending to be other Twitter users or officials of various organizations. It's wise to check comments for this attempted deception before releasing them, if you allow anonymous comments on your blog.

---

Saint Augustine's Blunder

St. Augustin - Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674)
(Los Angeles County Museum of Art)

Here's an interesting quote from one of Christianity's favourite thinkers - Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE).

First, a little background information:

[Saint Augustine] was a Latin philosopher and theologian from Roman Africa and generally considered as one of the greatest Christian thinkers of all times. His writings were very influential in the development of Western Christianity...

After his conversion to Christianity and baptism in AD 387, Augustine developed his own approach to philosophy and theology, accommodating a variety of methods and different perspectives. He believed that the grace of Christ was indispensable to human freedom, and he framed the concepts of original sin and just war.

When the Western Roman Empire was starting to disintegrate, Augustine developed the concept of the Catholic Church as a spiritual De Civitate Dei (City of God), in a book of the same name, distinct from the material Earthly City. His thoughts profoundly influenced the medieval worldview. Augustine's City of God was closely identified with the Church, the community that worshipped God.

In the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, he is a saint and pre-eminent Doctor of the Church, and the patron of the Augustinian religious order... Many Protestants, especially Calvinists, consider him to be one of the theological fathers of the Reformation due to his teaching on salvation and divine grace. In the Eastern Orthodox Church he is also considered a saint, his feast day being celebrated on 15 June. He carries the additional title of Blessed. Among the Orthodox, he is called "Blessed Augustine", or "St. Augustine the Blessed".

Source: Wikipedia - Augustine of Hippo

So, St. Augustine is famous and respected throughout Christendom as a philosopher and one of the fathers of theology whose writings are regarded as at least semi-divine if not actually divine.

Unfortunately he made a crass blunder: he made a testable prediction - something that is almost a cardinal sin in religious apologetics.

Here is what he has to say about the subject of a spherical earth and whether people could exist on the far side of it:

But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part that is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled.

It is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man. [My emphasis]

Source: De Civitate Dei, Book XVI, Chapter 9 — Whether We are to Believe in the Antipodes,
translated by Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D.; from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College.

So there we are, using Bible 'science', one of Christianity's foremost thinkers and the father of theology has proved that, even if earth is spherical, the idea that there could be people living on the far side is absurd because, being all descended from one man, namely Adam, they couldn't possibly have got there.

Yet, when European explorers got to the New World, to the East Indies, the Pacific Islands and the 'Antipodes' of Australia and New Guinea, not only had we shown that earth was indeed spherical and the 'Antipodes' existed, but there were people living on the far side of it, and had been there for thousands of years.

Augustine's confident prediction had been falsified.

Now, when science has a theory which makes a testable prediction which turns out to be falsified this is normally considered grounds for abandoning the theory. Not so with religious apologetics. Augustine's prediction was based on the theory that everyone alive on Earth was descended from Adam (actually the Bible says we are all descended from Noah but be that as it may). Was that theory abandoned when the prediction it made was falsified?

Of course not. Like so much else with theological 'proofs', reality didn't support it and, as is usual with Christian apologetics when the facts turn out to be the opposite of what was predicted, suddenly the 'reasoning' behind the prediction is also dispensed with. For example, you never hear creationist theologians who still admire Saint Augustine, turn his 'logic' round and argue that, because there were people living on the far side of Earth, they could not have been descended from Adam.

Yet, if St. Augustine's argument, that there could not be people on the far side of earth if we are all descended from Adam, was true, then the presence of people on the far side of earth proves we are not all descended from Adam.

Strangely, to a theologian, the brilliance of an argument, the validity of the 'facts' upon which it's based and the reliability of the logic is contingent on the conclusion. If the conclusion turns out to be different to the one required, the once brilliant argument suddenly dulls and loses its utility value, and can be dispensed with. As usual, when the dogma isn't supported by the evidence, the evidence must be ignored.

But of course, the person who dreamed it up in the first place is no less brilliant for being shown to be wrong, just so long as his other arguments still have a utility value for theologians and religious apologists by supplying them with the conclusions and 'proofs' they want.

---

Matthew's Bad Beatitudes

Continuing my quest for the source of the 'superior' Christian 'morality' which they are forever telling us they get from the Bible, I turned hopefully to Matthew 5 to read the so-called 'Beatitudes' from the quaintly named 'Sermon on the Mount'. Apparently, according the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus stood on a hill and made a speech to a multitude setting out the basis for a moral code.

For doubters, here is a nice photo of Jesus delivering his sermon.

I've noted before how Matthew reads more like someone trying the discredit Jesus, for example, 'Are These The Silliest Verses In The Bible?', 'Pull The Other One Matthew!', 'Hey Christians! Is Matthew For Real?' and 'Christians - Try Not To Think About Matthew', so I was not really surprised to find Matthew, true to form, showing us a Jesus with the morality of a mule stringer who thinks his charges only respond the threats and promises.

As Dan Barker points out in Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists, none of these are truly ethical because they are all conditions for a future reward. This is a précis of Dan Barker's analysis of them:

Beatitude	Comment
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.	Nothing by way of ethical actions here. All it says is that if you happen to be “poor in spirit” then you're going to heaven. Verses like this have been cited to keep slaves and women in their place.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.	Again, nothing by way of ethical actions. Why didn't Jesus tell us to comfort those who are in mourning? That would have been ethical.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.	This is only stating that if you happen to be a meek person then you're okay because you won’t be left out. This is like saying, “Be nice to Grandma because she might put you in her will.”
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.	This is about observing rituals and has nothing to do with ethics. Politically, righteousness breeds censorship, segregation, persecution, civil inequality, intolerance and the death of millions. If “righteousness” means “morality,” then why not just be moral?
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.	This is nothing more than a threat: God won't be merciful to those who aren't merciful. Why would God not be merciful in this situation if mercy is a good thing?
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.	What does “pure in heart” mean? Feeling kindly towards others? Not wishing for misfortune for other people? Not being judgemental? Not thinking about sex? Never trying to mislead? Being 'spiritual'? Leaving aside the biological nonsense of believing thoughts occur in a heart, this is just a nebulous cliché which can mean almost anything to anyone. And how can a person be “pure in heart” if we are all sinners by virtue of being born in the first place anyway?
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.	Jesus even flatly contradicted this when he said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” In biblical times, peace was a military concept. In Deuteronomy 20:10-11 God told his chosen people: “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.” So 'peace' means turning non-Jews into slaves, or killing them. Are these the 'blessed' to whom Jesus is referring or didn't he know his scripture?”
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.	Again, no specific moral behaviour, just an encouragement to invite and praise confrontation and dispute; to seek persecution for its own sake. This persecution complex contradicts the seventh Beatitude but if you stir up trouble for Jesus, you will be blessed and will receive a great “reward in heaven.” You are supposed to “rejoice, and be exceeding glad” when your actions incite others to treat you badly! We only need to look at the hate-filled antics of the Westboro Baptists to see what happens when people take this one seriously.

So, again, Matthew portrays Jesus as a sanctimonious hypocrite and purveyor of empty rhetoric - not so much Beatitudes as platitudes - and once again, no worthwhile morals can be found in the Bible. I'm really beginning to wonder if this book of origin myths and accounts of competing primitive sects called the Bible has anything worthwhile to offer at all.

I've shown that the 'Ten Commandments', whichever version you read, are next to useless, so can anyone suggest some other chapter which might contain a semblance of this 'moral compass' that Christians seem to be so sure is in there somewhere?

---

Randomly Refuting Creationism

It's an article of faith of the creationist/ID movement that information cannot arise by a random event, so it was some amusement that I received some information on the radio as I was driving home this evening. It was a classic example of what William Dembski calls 'Complex Specified Information' (CSI).

It almost goes without saying that creationists can ever explain why new information can supposedly never arise by a random event, and few if any of them ever seem to see any need to even try to understand the argument. It's sufficient merely to quote it like a protective mantra when the going gets tough and all the other arguments have been refuted yet again.

The information I heard was that a couple from Suffolk have become millionaires by winning £148,000,000 in a lottery. Here is a BBC TV news item about the same thing. Listen to them telling about how they received the information that they were now millionaires.

The information arose by a random process which was witnessed by millions of people across Europe and is carefully audited to ensure it is indeed entirely random. It involves randomly selecting balls with numbers on them. In the context of an environment in which the couple from Norfolk had previously selected some numbers on a card, this random signal translated into meaningful information just as randomly produced information in a genome can be translated into meaningful information by the environment.

Sorry about that creationists but you're now going to have to find another protective mantra and start looking for another hero who can hide his missing logic under a heap of impressive-sounding verbiage. I'm afraid reality has once again intervened and refuted another of your favourite fantasies.

William Lane Craig's Logical Kalamity

Let's have another look at William Lane Craig's filched (from mediaeval Islam) argument for a god (in his case, of course, not the Islamic god but the Christian god, which is the only one he will allow) the Kalâm Cosmological Argument.

I've previously debunked this fallacy in Favourite Fallacies - The Kalâm Cosmological Argument but a closer look at the argument reveals the basic flaws in logic with which Lane Craig bamboozles his credulous audiences using the same tactics as a televangelist wringing donations out of lonely, vulnerable and gullible people.

This argument isn't mine - I only wish it were - it's from Dan Barker's must-read book, Godless: How An Evangelical Preacher Became One Of America's Leading Atheists.

Basically, the KCA argues:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therfore the universe had a cause.

Of course, like medieval Islamic scholars who wanted to prove the universe was caused by Allah and so declared Allah to be the cause, William Lane Craig concludes that it must be his preferred god (or more accurately, his desired conclusion) and so declares the Christian god to be the cause.

It's fun to substitute anything you like for 'God' in Lane Craig's argument and so 'prove' it was anything you want. It works. Try it! You can 'prove' a peanut-butter sandwich created the universe if you want to.

So, where is the fallacy? How come something which Craigites love to tell us proves their favourite god created everything, can also, with equal ease, 'prove' it was anything you like which caused everything to exist? The answer of course is that there is a subtle trick in the argument which Lane Craig hopes you won't see.

The trick Lane Craig pulls is hidden in the first line - everything that begins to exist has a cause. This clearly implies that there is a set things which don't begin to exist. So what is there in this set of things-which-don't-begin-to-exist? Can you think of any? Are these natural things? If not, why not?

How do we identify these things and, more importantly, if there are such things, how does Lane Craig eliminate them as candidate causes of the universe?

What Lane Craig does, having created this convenient set of things-which-don't-begin-to-exist simply by including the deceptive clause, 'which begins to', is to allow only his desired conclusion to occupy it, and so he rigs the argument by stating it in such a way as to exclude everything but the answer he wants.

If you deny him that right and, with the same justification that Lane Craig uses (i.e., no justification at all) put any number of things you want into that set of things-which-don't-begin-to-exist, you can create as big a range of choices of causes of the universe as you want.

You can also choose, with the same justification, to say this set-of-things-which-don't-begin-to-exist is empty; that there are no such things. After all, if Craig can simply deem his preferred conclusion to be in that set, we can equally deem it not to be. We can, if we assume the same right that Lane Craig claims, declare that there is nothing that could have caused the universe, and conclude that therefore the universe had no cause. QED!

But why should there not be perfectly natural things which don't begin to exist, such as a non-zero quantum energy field, a black hole in another universe, or simply 'something' which may be the default state of existence rather than the nothing assumed by the KCA?

In essence, the KCA as used by William Lane Craig is nothing more than saying, "If the universe had a cause it must have been my god.". It is of course, the religious ploy of fact by fiat. Fiat Deus! Let there be God!

The only thing it proves is that there is a gap in William Lane Craig's knowledge and understanding into which he has projected an imaginary deity. Once you take away his deception of the rigged argument, you open up the possibility of perfectly natural causes of universes whilst still retaining the logic of 'everything which begins to exist' having a cause.

And you don't need to subscribe to that other logical absurdity in the KCA: the notion that there can be such a thing as nothing. How on earth can something which, by definition doesn't exist, exist? How can there be nothing for any possible meaning of the word 'be'? And how can anyone possibly claim to be able to assign properties to it or to make any meaningful statement about nothing, like declaring that nothing can come from it?

This may well be the most absurdly irrational assumption ever made. I'd certainly like to hear of a more absurd one.

Christian 'Logic'

@bibleraps Also I invite you to check out my article about the historical facts surrounding Jesus' death. thereforegodexists.com/2012/08/did-je…
— Richard (@AChristianWord) August 12, 2012

I just came across this outstanding example of Christian 'logic' in a blog by one Richard Bushey entitled Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?. Richard is setting out to 'prove' that Jesus was really resurrected from the dead using 'historical evidence', or so he implies in the tweet linking to it.

So, sit back and enjoy Richard's exposition of this historical evidence which, under normal circumstances would be expected to win the discoverer instant world-wide fame and fortune and a heap of awards:

As a Christian, I do believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. God incarnated himself in Jesus, and in confirmation of this, three days after Jesus’ crucifixion, he was resurrected, returned to the disciples and hundreds of others, and ascended to glory and immortality. I believe this, as a Christian, just as I believe that the scriptures are divinely inspired.

But when approaching an issue historically, one cannot take their presuppositions with them. Therefore as difficult as it may be for some people to read, I will not be treating the New Testament as though it were a divinely inspired text. I will be treating it as though it were a collection of historical documents. [My emphasis]

Er... and that's it. Richard is going to treat the New Testament "...as though it were a collection of historical documents", and, presumably, that is enough to turn them into historical evidence. No further verification, authentication, validation with external sources; no analysis of writing styles and/or cultural references. Deeming them to be evidence is all that's needed. To 'prove' your religion you start with your conclusion and works back from there, taking whatever leaps of logic and mental contortions may be needed on the way.

If all else fails, simply proclaim facts by fiat. Let there be evidence!

Well, not quite. Richard couldn't resist presenting us with a last clinching piece of evidence - an authentic photograph of an empty tomb. No! Honestly! Look!

Of course, Richard is only aping other Christian apologists who take great pride in performing these mental gymnastics with scant regard to reality so long as the bottom line comes out the way it's intended. No doubt he too has been impressed with the enthusiastic appreciation of an audience eager for any crumbs of comfort with which to handle the inevitable cognitive dissonance from having to live in the real world whilst still believing in magic.

And it's with 'logic' like this that Christians like Richard Bushey condescend to the rest of humanity, declare our children to be sinners for merely being born human, claim the right to make laws to constrain and compel us, claim the right to relegate half the population to second-class status, claim the right to frighten our children with threats of eternal pain and torture if they don't comply, declare themselves to be the arbiters of human ethics and morality and try to abrogate the right to political power over the rest of us.

In the past, logic like that was used to excuse the killing of anyone who dared to question it, and doubtless would be again if it ever manages to slip the leash we've managed to put on it in the civilised parts of the world.

---

Feminism

Taslima Nasreen

I have contributed an article about feminism on Taslima Nasreen's Blog 'No Country For Women'.

Taslima Nasreen, an award-winning writer, physician, secular humanist and human rights activist, is known for her powerful writings on women oppression and unflinching criticism of religion, despite forced exile and multiple fatwas calling for her death. In India, Bangladesh and abroad, Nasreen’s fiction, nonfiction, poetry and memoir have topped the best-seller’s list.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima

It is a huge honour for me to have been asked to contribute to her blog.

The article may be read here: 'Why I Am A Feminist'.


'via Blog this'

The Immoral Bible

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

Numbers 15:32-36

"The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp" - God

Numbers 15:35

If you are Christian, imagine reading about a story in the Qur'an in which Allah orders the killing of a man who was not harming anyone or anything, merely for providing for his family. Would this induce you to convert to Islam because Allah is such a just and merciful god and a source of such wonderfully humane rules for humanity to live by?

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

Numbers 15:32-36

Really? For picking up firewood instead of obeying a god who doesn't even seem sure why we should observe the Sabbath, judging by its change of mind between the different versions of the fourth of the 'Ten Commandments'?